About your Search

20121229
20121229
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and consi
by sandy renwau, and yee fong. >> good afternoon, ms. woods. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. i've been living in north beach since 1962. i've continuously used the central subway, but we lost that one. i am just stupefied by some of the lies. i can't believe option 2 was not the favored choice. director rifkin, you were there, i'm sure you remember this rather clearly. we were not notified about this meeting and that these options were going to be presented to you until november 30th. i understand not everybody was notified by mr. funge if these options were going to be put before you. but anyway, i was. and then i've been back and forth with him three or four times about why option 2 didn't appear on the agenda. and the last thing i heard from him was, he thanked me this was the first. thank you for your comments regarding option 2. we'll be presenting all options to our board of -- on december the first. i don't see option 2 anyplace in your agenda. the decision on which option to move forward is now with our board. i was at the meeting all three hours of it and option 2 was clearly
cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good evening president fong and commissioners, my name is christine -- i am an attorney in san francisco and i am spoking on behalf of mr. and mrs. flavia, who are at 1870 pacific avenue unit 505, which is the property directly being affected by the project and also speaking on behalf of mr. bernard, who is at 1830 jackson street, who is not here tonight, and has not had an opportunity to send a letter and both partis are objecting to this project. i have some procedural objections to this. my office received the conditional use application this past monday, even though we had asked for it and therefore we had not had enough time to make a presentation in detail about what are the different reasons we object to it? i have been asked specifically to also voice his objections in that he apparently did not receive this notice of this application until just recently and was not able to attend tonight. now i am also informed that the sponsor and/or his architect never had a pre-approval meeting with the pacific heights association to get t
. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. my name is dawn and i'm with the middle polk neighborhood association. i come here today with a question that i need to share with you. it's a question that has been posed to me day after day after day in the past several weeks. and that is what process is being followed in this case? and i can't answer that question to the members of our association and the leaders of other associations that are asking me. is this a new process? is this a new way of doing things? will other developers be given this shorter process? because you know we just heard this case here in june. so we're back kind of quick on that. i would like to be able to really fully be able to answer that question when i am asked that. and i cannot do that now. so some help on that would be very much appreciated. we also would appreciate some help as far as the timeframe is going on this. we're here in front of you just a couple of weeks before christmas and then a couple of weeks after christmas you want us to be back. there is all
. thank you >> thank you. project sponsor you have a 2-minute rebuttal. >> >> thank you. president fong and commissioners, i will be very brief. objective third party planning department has looked into this and they don't see anyway extraordinary privacy issues. they spent their time looking at the drawings and they did not see those privacy issues that the dr requester is mentioning. with regarding to the solar panels, they weren't there -- they added them after we proposed the project. and didn't take into consideration the project regardless at our own expense, at the request of the dr requester, we did a solar study. the reason why you are not hearing mention of the solar study because it clearly shows that it doesn't shade their panels, regardless of the fact that they used them as leverage against us to say we don't want this. and finally with regards to the stairs looking in, it would be remarkable to be able to look into a slanted bay window with the stairs. these are issues being brought up now. there was six months of silence from the dr requester where we continually asked
hearing remains open. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners, i am rick crawford of the department staff. this case is to clarify the continuation of a wine store, tasting room and bar at 1327 polk street within the polk street ncd. the business remains a combination of retail wine sales, wine tasting with a bar aabc licensing. these changes are recommended as conditions of approval. in october of the planning commission continued the hearing due to misunderstandings regarding the nature and legality of the use and because of noise complaints. since that hearing staff has met about sponsor and representatives of the lower polk neighborhoods, communicating with the police department and the entertainment commission and on the close reading of the conditional use authorization, motion indicateds that the present operation of the business has a combination of retail wine sales, wine tallesting and bar is consistent with the 2005 authorization. lack of clarity regarding what had been approve can be seen in the fact that six months after the 2005 approval, the zoning a
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6